On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 04:29:32PM +0000, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 08:37, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > +1 from me on "RDF Source".
>
> Okay, it seems most here can live with that term, which is encouraging.
I could live with "RDF Source" too, though "source" is an awfully general word
so I'm more interested in the accompanying explanation. For example, can we
just substitute "space" with "source" from the following [1]?
An RDF space [=> source] is anything that can reasonably be said to
explicitly contain zero or more RDF triples and has an identity distinct
from the triples it contains.
I am curious how we ended up with "source" because it was not one of the
half-dozen or so options bandied about a few months ago [1]:
The term "space" might change. The final terminology has not yet been
selected by the Working Group. Other candidates include "g-box", "data
space", "graph space", "(data) surface", "(data) layer", "sheet", and
"(data) page". The contributors also note that the term â€œresourceâ€ was
considered, and could be used but for possible ambiguities with other,
partially overlapping, uses of that term. The term â€œRDF spaceâ€ is intended
to be synonymous with the term â€œg-boxâ€, as defined by the RDF Working
Group.
...but "graph container" was not on that list either [2].
Tom
[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/RDFNG.html#
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#resolution_1
--
Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>